Selected quad for the lemma: nation_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nation_n	baptise_v	baptize_v	infant_n	1,224	5	9.3240	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45830	Infants-baptism disproved and believers baptism proved, or, An answer to several arguments propounded in a paper by Mr. Alexander Kellie, minister at Giles Criple Gate London, and sent to Mr. Jeremiah Ives of the said parish and is now published for the general information of all, but particularly for the satisfaction of many of the inhabitants of the said parish who have desired it, wherein the arguments for infant-baptism are examined and disproved by the said Jeremia Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1655 (1655)	Wing I1100; ESTC R31669	39,332	78

he shall survey your Arguments with the Answers to them Your first stone that you lay in this building or Argument that you bring to prove Infants ought to be Baptized is Mr. Kellie's first Argument IF all Nations are commanded to be baptized then Infants are commanded to be baptized But all Nations are commanded to be baptized Ergo Infants are commanded to be baptized Mr. Ive's Answer I Doe first deny the major Proposition because that in many places of Scripture the word all Nations is used where Infants are not included as Psal 72.17 All Nations shall call him blessed Deut. 29.24 All Nations shall say wherefore hath the Lord done thus unto this Land Mark 11.17 Is it not written saith Christ that my house shall be called of all Nations the house of prayer Psal 118.10 All Nations compassed me about but in the name of the Lord will I destroy them And so Mat. 3.12 All Nations shall call you blessed And the very place upon which you frame your Argument is enough if there were no more Mat. 28.19 where Christ bids his Disciples to Goe and teach all Nations c. I would ask any man that knowes what an Argument is whether by your Rule of reasoning viz. All Nations are commanded to be baptized therefore Infants I may not as well say The Disciples were commanded to teach all Nations therefore they were commanded to teach Infants of eight dayes old And again the Disciples were commanded to teach them to wit the Nations according to our Translation all things that Christ commanded his Disciples to doe Now the Disciples were commanded to break bread and drink wine in remembrance of the body and blood of the Lord Mat. 26.27 And they were commanded to wash one anothers feet John 13.14 and many other things Now may I not as well say That Infants were commanded these things as well as baptism since as the 19 Verse saith Baptize them the 20 Verse saith Teaching them to observe all things that I. viz. Christ have commanded you And again May I not as well say from the fore cited Scriptures because the Psalms saith all Nations shall call Christ blessed that Infants in the Cradle at eight dayes old shall call him blessed And because all Nations shall say wherefore hath God done this to Israel therefore Infants of eight dayes old shall say so And because that Christ saith that his fathers house shall be called of all Nations a house of prayer that therefore Infants of eight dayes old are commanded to call it so And because David saith all Nations compassed him about therefore Infants of eight dayes old compassed him about And because it 's prophesied that all Nations shall call Israel blessed therefore Infants of eight dayes old shall call them blessed I say May I not as well reason thus as you may reason If all Nations may be baptized Infants may 2 I yet Answer further as before at our meeting That this Argument pleads as much for the baptizing of all Turks and Infidells because as Turks and Infidells they are a part of all Nations though they never believe in Christ and by this rule the Eunuch Acts 8. might have desired baptism although he had never believ'd in Christ because he was of some one Nation or other which is contrary I presume to your own opinion and to the opinion of the Church of England who will not baptize a Turk or an Indian unlesse he convert and professe Christ But may not the Turk or Indian if he should be denied baptism take up your Argument and say If all Nations may be baptized then we may be baptized But all Nations may be baptized Therefore we may See therefore how this Argument doth interfere with your owne practice 3 Again You seem to plead for the baptism of believers Children onely but your Argument pleads for unbelievers Children as much or more then believers for if that believers Children must be baptized because they are a part of Nations who sees not but by the same rule unbelievers Children may be baptized because they are a greater part of the Nations then the Children of believers I Answer to your minor Proposition as before at your house That it 's a Command for believers and Disciples of Christ that they should be baptized and not for all the Nations as appears by the Originall word which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing THEM and not the Nations which you could not deny which made way for your second Argument which was to prove that Infants were Disciples Mr. Kellie's second Argument ALL that are taught of God are Disciples But the Infants of Gods people are taught of God Ergo. They are Disciples Mr. Ive's Answer I Answer first by distinguishing of the Tearm Taught in the major Proposition If by Taught you mean as the Prophet Jeremiah doth Chap. 32.33 where it 's said God taught them but they refused to receive Instruction then I deny the major for those that refused to receive instruction were not Disciples though they were taught But secondly If by Taught you mean taught so as to receive instruction and learn then I deny the minor for that Infants at eight dayes old are not taught neither doe they receive instruction or learn To prove this you bring Isa 54.13 where it 's said All thy Children shall be taught of God Answer This doth no more prove that infants in the Cradle of eight dayes old were taught and learned then the Command the Disciples had to teach all Nations proves that they taught infants of eight dayes old and that they learned instruction 2 This is a Prophesie that all Israels Children should be taught of God and not a Prophesie that they should all be taught so as to learn in your sence which is the thing you are to prove for if they should all be so taught then they should all of them be saved 3 If you shall say the Prophesie respects the believers Children whether Jewes or Gentiles that they shall be all taught c. yet it doth not say they shall be taught in their Cradle or at eight dayes old which you must prove because you say infants are Disciples 4 How soon doe you lose the tearms of the Proposition You are to prove Infants are taught and you bring a Text that speaks of Children as though there were no Children but infant-children Whereas indeed the Scripture tells us of all Abrahams Children that were so by believing and not by virtue of their carnall discent from Abraham Gal. 3.7 You further goe on to prove that this Teaching is to be understood of infants and that it 's a teaching by which they learn and are made Disciples by the Argument that you used at your house which is the same in your Paper Mr. Kellie THey that are inwardly and effectually taught are taught and learne But infants according to this Scripture Isa 54.13 are inwardly and effectually taught

so far ingage them in the Christian Religion that all the Philosophicall deceits of men should never be able to turn them from it And where is so much as one word to your purpose I must needs say That out of all the Texts you have prest I cannot see water enough to sprinkle upon the face of one Child And whereas you tell me Mr. Kellie I Might have saved you this labour and my selfe too if I had minded the Books of Dr. Featly Mr. Marshall Mr. Gerce Mr. Church Mr. Cobbet Mr. Baxter Mr. Cooke Mr. Blake Mr. Fuller Mr. Sidenham besides many other excellent men who have written in Latine as Hossius Calvin Beza Bullinger and all the best lights in the Christian world full and clear against me Mr. Ive's TO this I Answer That you might have saved me a lobour if you had found out of all your Observations of these men but one plain Command or example for infants baptism and given it me at your house or sent it in your Paper which makes me think that either these men have said as little to the purpose as you or else that you have minded them but a little because you otherwise would have said more to the purpose then I doe perceive you have done But 2 I have not lived without some observations of if not all yet many of these mens works for I have not as yet taken up any Opinion wherein I differ from you or others but I have seriously weighed it in the ballance of the Sanctuary And I have not declined the way of these men you name nor any other but when I have upon serious examination found that they have declined the footsteps of the Primitive Purity either in Doctrine or Discipline And whereas you talk of learned men and fathers and best Lights in the Christian world that they are all against me I tell you that if God and his word be for me I care not who is against me And I tell you further that I had rather have one Testimony from the word of God for my practice then ten thousand of these Authors without it I Shall therefore shew you 1 Plain Scripture Proof for believers baptism 2 Plain Example for it 3 Plain Command and Example for the manner of the Administration of it 4 And lastly That the footsteps hereof since you talk of learned and godly men was not wholly defaced in the three first Centuries after the Apostles nor then neither Nay a man may make a shift to know this was the practice by those relicks of it that remained in the Church of England till the memory of man That Christ our Lord Commands this who we must hear in all things or else we shall be destroyed appears first from Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations baptizing them c. Which most of your own Authors doe acknowledge * See Mr. Baxter in his plain Scripture proof for Infants baptism p. 15. as I have shewed should be read Make Disciples baptizing THEM and not the Nations as you would somtimes have it Though at your house you granted the Text ought to be so Translated as I have now rendred it therefore you proceeded from hence to prove infants Disciples which you could not have done but by granting what I have said The next Text is Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved c. Acts 10 48. And he Viz. the Apostle commanded them to be baptized with water who were converted by his Preaching in the name of the Lord Jesus Mark 1.4 John did Preach the baptism of repentance which could not be infants baptism Acts 2.38 Peter said Repent and be baptized every one of you Acts 22.16 Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins Secondly We have plenty of Example of this in the Scripture Rom. 6.4 We Viz. believing Romans are buried with him in baptism Mat. 3.6 They were all baptized of John in Jordan confessing their sins Mark 1.9 Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan Mat. 3.15 Acts 2.41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized c. Acts 8.12 When they did believe Philips preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God they were baptized both men and women Acts 8.38 when the Eunuch profest faith Vers 37. 't is said Vers 38. that Phillip baptized him Acts 9.18 Saul when he was converted the Text saith He arose and was baptized The Jaylor Acts 16.33 when he and his house believed the Text sayes He and all his were baptized Acts 18.8 And Crispus the chief Buler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his house And many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized Acts 19.5 When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Thirdly Command and Example in plain words for the manner of it which was by dipping the person all over in the water and not by sprinkling water upon the face as the manner of the Nation is This appears by the Command Make Disciples for so it must be read of all Nations dipping them into the name of the Father Son and Spirit for that is the English signification of the word And I desire you to shew me where baptizo signifies aspersio in all the Bible And the like Command you have Mark 16.16 But that you may know that dipping and not sprinkling was the Command of Christ and the Practice of the Primitive times however it is now laughed at appears by the Practice of Christ himself Mat. 16.3 Jesus when he was baptized went UP OUT of the water c. Mark 1.5 They were all baptized of him in the River Jordan c. John 2.23 John was baptized in Aenon near to Salim because there was Much water there and They Came and were baptized Acts 8.38 39. 't is said Vers 38. that They viz. Philip and the Eunuch went both downe into the water And when Philip had baptized him it is said Vers 39. That they came out of the water I shall appeale to all unbiassed men whether baptizing men and women in Rivers upon their professing faith in Christ doth not better accord with these Scriptures then sprinkling water upon the face of infants Besides Fourthly This was the Practice of the Church long after the Apostles as appears first by what Socrates Scholasticus in his Ecclesiasticall History reports of Constantine the Great That though he was the Son of Hellena a zealous Professor of Christ lib. 1. cap. 13. yet he was not baptized till he was 65 years old which was after he had left Constantinople and Helenopolis and came to Nicomedia where dwelling in a Mannor without the Town-walls he was baptized into the faith of Christ in which baptism he greatly rejoyced lib. 1. cap. 26. Again the same Author saith That in Alexandria the Holy Sciptures were read and interpreted by the UNBAPTIZED which he cals Cathecumenists aswell as by them that were baptized which saith he was contrary to the Custome of

Again You say I brought in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prove that the Command Mat. 28. reacheth only Disciples not all Nations my reason you say is Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Neuter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Masculine Gender But this you say is no reason at all as appears by Mat. 25.32 where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must neds have relation to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unlesse there shall not be a separation between all Nations at the last day This Enallage generis where the Masculine Gender is put with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usuall in Scripture and many times you say includes Children as Mat. 25.32 Rev. 2.26 27. 19.15 Acts 15.17 21.25 26.17 28.28 Ephes 2.11 4.17 Mr. Ive's 1 YOu did agree at your house that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did relate to Disciple and accordingly went about to prove that Children were Disciples as appears by many of your Arguments 2 I said not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did no where refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that in this Scripture it ought to refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you also granted 3 Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet it doth not follow that the infants in the Nations are included yea the contrary is apparent from the latter clause of the sentence where it is said Teaching them which doth sufficiently intimate that those of the Nations are hereby only meant who are capable of Discipline and consequently had the use of reason which agreeth not unto infants who as the Scripture sheweth together with the attestation of common sense have no knowledge between good and evill Deut. 1.39 Moreover your little ones which you said should be a prey and your Children which in that day had no knowledge between good and evill they shall goe in thither and unto them will I give it and they shall possesse it Isai 7.14 15 16. Therefore the Lord himselfe shall give you a signe behold a Virgin shall conceive a Son and shall call his name Imanuel Butter and Honey shall he eat that he may know to refuse the evill and choose the good For before the Child shall know to refuse the evill and choose the good the Land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her Kings Likewise the very instance you bring out of Mat. 25.32 doth refute your opinion for there such only of the Nations are understood as had acted in the world and done either good or evill for they are such as had either relieved Christ in his necessity or refused to doe so neither of which agreeth to infants for would it not be ridiculous to imagine that our Lord Christ should say to the infants Goe yee cursed into everlasting fire for I was hungry and yee fed me not Besides every one of the rest of the places cited by you where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found doth if the circumstances be examined mean them only of the Nations that had the use of reason and so are not a whit to your purpose 4 You goe on to another Argument and tell me that Mr. Kellie THat which God hath once commanded and never repealed ought still to be obeyed But he did once Command that the Children of his servants whom he hath taken into Covenant with himselfe should have the seale of the rightousnesse of faith set upon them which he hath never forbidden only he hath taken away the outward circumcision therefore we must obey that Command still Mr. Ive's I Doe deny this whole Sillogism because first there is not one of the tearms of the Propos in it which had you argued honestly you should have said thus That which God once commanded and never repealed is in force still and then you should have assumed But God did once Command the baptizing of infants and never repealed it therefore that Command is in force still Indeed had you reasoned thus and proved the minor a gracious heart would hardly have denied it But then 2 This Argument contradicts it selfe for you say He did once Command and never afterwards forbid that infants should have the seale and token of the Covenant and yet you say presently after That Circumcision was taken away then it folowes that the seale of it was prohibited and the use of it forbidden is not this a palpable contradiction For what was the seale of faith that God commanded to Abraham Was it not Circumcision Gen. 17.10 Rom. 10.11 If so then when Circumcision was repealed that Law which commanded nothing else must needs be repealed and if the Law be in force it must require some other thing as well as Circumcision and so be but in part repealed if Circumcision be repealed You might as well have said that James Duke Hamilton was a live after James Earl of Cambridge was beheaded as say that that Law given to Abraham Gen. 17.10 is in force and yet say Circumcision was taken away Who but those are willfully ignorant doth not see this empty kind of arguing You proceed to another Argument and tell me that Mr. Kellie THey which had a right to the Ordinance that was profitable every way have still a right to baptism But the Children of Gods people have a right to that Ordinance that was profitable every way Ergo. The Children of Gods people have a right to baptism Mr. Ive's THis Argument among the rest we met with at your house and I did then and so I doe now deny the major for if you look the text upon which it is grounded Rom 3.1 2. you will find that this Ordinance you speak of was Circumcision so that then the major Proposition in plain English is this They that had had a right to Circumcision have a right to baptism if this be a good Argument why doe you plead for the infants of believers so much May you not as well plead for the unbelieving Jewes and their infants by the same reason thus They that had a right to circumcision have a right to baptism but the Jewes and their infants had a right to Circumcision therefore they have a right to baptism now If you shall say so they have if they convert to believe in Christ I say then you have answered your selfe and then it followeth not that their right to Circumcision did give them a right to baptism but their believing in Christ for if it did your must baptize a Jew though he did never believe You now come to scare me with great words since you cannot doe it by Arguments and this you indeavour to doe by telling me of fearfull and base Absurdities that will follow upon what I have said in denying infants baptism The first Aburdity you say is Mr. Kellie THat if baptism be denied to the infants of believers then the Children of the Devills servants under the Law had better means of grace confer'd upon them

then the dearest Children of the best servants of God have now under the Gospell thought the Gospel be a better Covenant established upon better promises Heb. 7.22 Heb. 8.6 c. Mr. Ive's I Answer to this first by denying the Consequence for it doth not follow they had better priviledg●s then then we have now if we deny them baptism But the contrary is true we are and so are our Children freed from those rudiments they were in bondage to Gal. 4.3 4. and Vers 5. 't is said Christ came to redeem us from the Law And in Acts 15.10 your Text that you did alledge for infants Discipleship Circumcision is there call'd a yoke that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear and yet you presume to call this a priviledge which the Scripture calls a bondage and a yoke But if you shall say that in Rom. 3.1 2. the Apostle sai●h they had advantage by it I answer that proves not but that it was a yoke for a servant hath an advantage by a Prentiship doth it follow therefore that an Apprentiship is not a state of bondage Now if God will freely bestow those things upon our infants without either Circumcision or baptism this is so far from Lesse grace that it is more grace then was bestowed upon infants under the Law And I challenge you and all the world to shew me one Text in all the Bible where God doth either threaten parents or Children with the losse of any favour either spirituall or temporall for not baptizing their infants If so then your talking of denying them favour by denying them baptism is but a figment of you own braine And whereas you talk of the Children of the Devils servants that they had more priviledge then we because they were Circumcised I answer first the Text that you bring to prove it Ezek. 16.20 saith not so 2 It saith they did offer their Children in the fire but yet remember that this Chapter treats of the whole Nation of Israel which you spake so much in favour of but even now though you now call them the Children of the Devil but be it so you have heard that their priviledge you plead for was a bondage that God hath freed our infants from and as long as you confesse they are freed form Circumcision and you cannot prove any other thing is injoyned to infants what 's become of your great Absurdity Your second Absurdity is like the first for you say that Mr. Kellie DEnying infants baptism shewes God is lesse carefull and his love is lesse and his faithfullnesse is lessened towards infants now over it was of old And this you would prove from Jer. 30.20 Mic. 7. last Mr. Ive's IN the first of these Scriptures it is said that the Children of Israel shall be as afore time and you say the Children of his people in the Gospel shall be as the Children of his servants afore time which is altogether false for it is a Prophesie of their return from all Nations to become a Nation again as before time as any body may see that doth not wink at Jer. 30.18 And as for this Text if by making infants under the Gospel as the Jewes were under the Law if that be your notion upon the Text and the word afore time then we must circumcise them or else they cannot be as afore time Doe you not pervert Scripture to make us Judaize And to that Text Mic. 7. last where God saith He will perform his truth to Jacob c. I demand first whether ever God swore to Jacob or the fore fathers or ever made any promise to them that their infants under the Gospel should be baptized if he did show us where if he did not then you doe but slander God instead of bringing the least absurdity upon me in saying that he is unfaithfull c. if infants are not baptized And you tell us that Christ Luke 1.71 72. Came into the world for this end it 's true he came to fulfill what God had promised before time but how doth this bear hard either upon his love or faithfullnesse viz. Not to baptize infants unlesse as I have said he had before promised they should be baptized Your third Absurdity is that Mr. Kellie DEnying infants baptism doth dishonour Gods wisedome because we look upon it as folly say you to administer an Ordinance to infants but the wise God did administer an Ordinance upon the infants that did not understand it Mr. Ive's TO this I answer That our denying infants baptism doth rather dishonour your wisedom and the wisedome of this world then the wisedome of God because God never required it at your hands And whereas you say God did administer an Ordinance to ignorant infants c. I demand if this be not horrible presumption for you to administer an Ordinance upon infants without a Command because the most high God caused an Ordinance once to be administred by a Command And whether now for any one to oppose this practice of yours be not much rather a flying in the face of your wisedome then Gods It 's no marvell then that you say Here is enough to kindle your spirit against my opinion for ever because indeed denying infants baptism sets as it were a fire the foundation of your Craft by which you beguile the simple And you know this put a fire into the breast of the men of Ephesus against the Apostles Doctrine when they understood that the gaine they got by their Will-worship was like to be set at naught Your fourth and last Absurdity that you say followes upon denying infants baptism is that Mr. Kellie IT makes believing parents and their Children worse then Heathen and their Children in whom the Prince of the power of the aire ruled c. Yet such say you coming into the acknowledgement of the true God had not onely themselves but their infants taken into Covenant and had the token thereof which you say I deny to Children Mr. Ive's THis is all one with your first Absurdity therefore the same Answer will serve it for was not this your first Absurdity that you said followed denying infants baptism viz. That the Children of the Devills servants under the Law had better means of grace confer'd upon them then the Children of the best servants of God have And what doe you say more now For what difference is there between believers and their infants and Gods best servants and their infants And what difference is there between the Children of the Devills servants and the Children of those in whom the Prince of the aire ruleth c. And what difference is there between circumcising the Children of the Devills servants under the Law and circumcising the Children of those in whom the Prince of the aire ruled c. But yet a word to this though it be one with the former First how doth my opinion make them Viz. believing Parents and their infants worse then